Egyptian-Hebrew stream·Mishnah·Berakhot — Chapter VIII

Source context

Theme

Tannaitic legal-oral transmission: codified rulings on a specific halakhic domain within the Mishnaic chapter

Steiner

not engaged in the GA corpus

Cross-tradition

• Jewish Oral Torah (Tannaitic tradition)The Mishnaic chapter represents the formalization of oral tradition (Torah she-be'al peh) into written halakhic discourse, a process structurally parallel to the crystallization of living esoteric wisdom into written doctrine noted across multiple traditions.
• Kabbalah / Jewish esotericismThe Mishnah's codified legal reasoning stands in cross-tradition congruence with Kabbalistic textual layering, where exoteric legal form (halakha) and esoteric meaning (sod) coexist within the same corpus.

Chapter VIII

CHAPTER VIII.

§ 1. The following are the points relating to meals, respecting which the schools of Shammai and of Hillel differ. Beth Shammai

hold that on festivals man must first say the blessing of the day and then [that] on the wine: whereas, Beth Hillel hold, he must [first] say the blessing on the wine and then that of the day.

§ 2. Beth Shammai say, the hands must be washed first, and the goblet [for the blessing] be filled afterwards. But Beth Hillel say the goblet must be filled first, and then the hands be washed.

§ 3. Beth Shammai say, man is to put the napkin on which he wipes [his hands] on the table; whereas Beth Hillel say, he is to put it on the couch.

§ 4. Beth Shammai say, that after a meal, the room must be swept out first, and the hands be washed afterwards [for the grace]; whereas Beth Hillel say, the hands are to be washed first, and then the room is to be swept.

§ 5. Beth Shammai say the blessings 1 in the following order:—Over the light, the food, the spices, and the distinction of the festival [‏הבדלה‎]; whereas Beth Hillel say, the light, the spices, the food, and ‏הבדלה‎. According to Beth Shammai, the form of blessing on the light is, "who created the light of fire;" but, according to Beth Hillel, it is, "Creator of the lights of fire." 2

§ 6. The blessing must not be said over light and spices belonging to an idolator, nor over light and spices placed near a corpse, nor yet over light and spices placed before objects of idolatry. The blessing over the light is not to be said until the person saying the blessing has enjoyed the benefit of the light.

§ 7. If a person has forgotten to say grace after his meal, Beth Shammai hold, he must return to his place and there say grace; but Beth Hillel hold, he may say it in any place where he recollects [the omission]. Until when does the obligation to say grace remain in force? Until the food in his stomach has been digested.

§ 8. If wine be placed on the table after the food, and there be but one goblet full, Beth Shammai hold, that the blessing on the wine is to be said first, and then the grace after meat; whereas Beth Hillel hold, that the grace after meat is to be said first, and then the blessing on the wine. The response "Amen" must be made when an Israelite pronounces a blessing: but is not to be made after a Samaritan, unless the whole of the blessing has been heard.

Footnotes

11:1 Referring to the meal at the expiration of a Sabbath or holy day, should there be but one goblet of wine left. Most of these regulations have a direct reference to the customs of the East, in the days of the Mishna.

11:2 i.e., The various tints of the rays of light.

Chapter VIII

CHAPTER VIII.

§ 1. It is prohibited to sow kilaim in a vineyard, to allow it to grow if it has sprung up spontaneously, or to receive any benefit therefrom. It is prohibited to sow kilaim of seeds, and to allow it to grow; but it is lawful to eat of it, and, à fortiori, to derive benefit therefrom. Kilaim of clothing may lawfully be applied to any purpose, except that of dressing or clothing one's self therewith. It is permitted to rear kilaim of cattle; but it is unlawful to breed from them; and also to cause them to copulate with each other, [as a mule, gotten on a mare by an ass, with one by a stallion out of a she-ass].

§ 2. It is prohibited to plough with, to cause to draw, or to drive a team composed of domestic animals of diverse kinds, or of wild animals of diverse kinds; or with a team composed of a domestic animal and a wild one, a wild with a domestic one, an unclean beast with a clean one, or a clean with an unclean one.

§ 3. Whosoever drives [a team] of kilaim shall bear the punishment of the forty [stripes]; and whoever sits in the waggon or carriage is also liable to the punishment of forty stripes; but R. Meir absolves the last named [person]. It is also prohibited to fasten to a team a third animal not of the same kind as the other two, [as an ass to a team of two oxen], even though it should not assist in drawing.

§ 4. It is prohibited to tie a horse [in order to break it in], to tine sides of, or behind, a waggon [drawn by oxen], and also [to tie], for the purpose of draught, [a Lybian ass] 1 with a camel. R. Jehudah saith, "Whatever is foaled by a mare may be joined with each other, although the sire should have been an ass; and, in like manner, whatever is foaled by a she-ass may be joined together, although tine sire should have been a horse; but it is unlawful to join what has been foaled by a mare with that which has been foaled by a she-ass."

§ 5. It is prohibited to cause the ‏פרוטיות‎ 2 to copulate; but it is

allowed to do so with the ‏רמך‎. 3 The ‏אדני שדה‎ 4 is a wild animal; R. José saith, "its dead carcase, even like that of a human being, causes all that is under the cover of a tent to contract pollution." The porcupine and the ‏חולדת הסניים‎ 5 will, as R. José says, according to Beth Shammai, "cause a person to contract pollution who has carried any portion of their carcases, which has the size of an olive, or who has touched any part of it of the size of a lentil."

The urus, or buffalo, must be considered as a domestic animal; R. José, however, saith, "as a wild animal. The dog as a wild animal;" but R. Meir saith, "as a domestic one." The hog as a domestic animal; the zebra as a wild animal. The elephant and the monkey as wild animals. It is lawful for a human being to draw, plough, or drive [together] with any of these animals.

Footnotes

29:1 Heb. ‏לובדקים‎ The explanation of Maimonides and Bartenora has here been adopted. They state it to be a kind of ass, greatly exceeding the ordinary size, and resembling the camel.

29:2 Mules, of which it cannot be ascertained whether the dam was a mare or a she-ass.

30:3 The term ‏בני הדמכים‎ has, in the English version of Esther, been rendered (viii. 14), "mules and camels," which cannot be meant here; but the true meaning, and which fully applies here, appears to be that given by Aben Ezra, in his Commentaries on Esther, ad loc. cit. "Mules foaled by mares, which are stronger than those foaled by she-asses."

30:4 The description of this animal, given by various commentators of the Mishna, is, that of an absolutely fabulous one, which cannot have been meant by the text. According to Dr. Jost's surmise, "It may be a kind of ape, perhaps an ouran outang, or Chimpanzee."

30:5 Wild weasel. According to others, a Chinese weasel; but, according to the opinion of Maimonides, "a kind of fox or martin."

Chapter VIII

CHAPTER VIII.

§ 1. Whoever carries out wine sufficient to mix a goblet [of wine], 1 [such as is used at grace after meat], milk equal to a mouthful, honey sufficient to spread upon a sore, oil sufficient to anoint a small limb [joint], water sufficient to form a colyrium [wash for one eye], or of any other kind of beverage, quarter of a lug, and also of whatever can be poured out [liquids], quarter of a lug. R. Simeon saith, "For all [the articles here enumerated] the legal quantity is one quarter lug; and the [various] quantities here specified are only for those who conserve [keep the articles].

§ 2. Whoever carries out rope sufficient to make a handle for a box, [basket], or reed sufficient to make a hook for [whereon to hang] a fine, or a coarse sieve; R. Jehudah saith, "Sufficient to take measure for a child's shoe, paper sufficient to write thereon a toll-bill 2, and, [lastly, whoever carries out] a toll-bill of blotted paper, sufficient, to wrap a small balm flask therein, is guilty."

§ 3. Vellum sufficient for an amulet, [double wove parchment sufficient to write a mezoozah thereon], single wove parchment sufficient to write thereon the smallest section [parashah] of the Tephilin, which is ‏שמע ישראל‎, ink sufficient to write two letters, paint sufficient to dye one eye. 3

§ 4. Bird-lime sufficient to put on the top of the lime twig; pitch, or sulphur, sufficient to fill up a tube of quicksilver; wax sufficient to stop up a small leak [in a wine cask]; loam sufficient to make an

orifice [for a bellows], or the crucible of a gold refiner. R. Jehudah saith, "sufficient to make a stand [for such a crucible], lime sufficient to cover the little finger of a maiden." R. Jehudah saith, "sufficient to cover one of her temples." R. Nehemiah saith, "sufficient to anoint one of her temples [withal]." 4

§ 5. Red loam sufficient to seal a bale of goods. Such is the dictum of R. Akivah; but the sages hold, "sufficient to seal a letter therewith." Dung, or fine sand, sufficient to manure a cabbage-stalk. Such is the dictum of R. Akivah; but the sages hold, "sufficient to manure a leek therewith." Coarse sand sufficient to fill a trowel, reed sufficient to make a writing-pen, and should it be thick or split, sufficient to boil the lightest of eggs 5, [which], mixed with oil, [lies] in a hot shell.

§ 6. Bone sufficient to make a spoon. R. Jehudah saith, "sufficient to make [a fitting] for a key." Glass sufficient to scrape the top of a weaver's shuttle therewith, a lump of mould, or a stone, large enough to throw at a bird. R. Eleazar ben Jacob saith, "large enough to throw at a beast."

§ 7. Potsherds large enough to put between deals to poise them. Such is the dictum of R. Jehudah; but R. Meir saith, "large enough to shovel up ignited fuel therewith." R. José saith, "large enough to receive [hold] quarter [of a lug]." R. Meir saith, "Although there is not [any absolute] proof in support [of my] assertion, there is an indication [of my] assertion; for it is said, 'There shall not be found in the bursting of it a sherd to take fire from the hearth.'" 6 But R. José replied, "[Can you] thence [adduce] a proof? [Does not the sentence conclude with the words], 'or to take water withal out of the pit?'" 7

Footnotes

48:1 The goblet holds one quarter lug. The proportion in mixing is three parts water to one part wine. Consequently, the quantity here meant, is, one-sixteenth of a lug.

48:2 The toll-bill contained two large sized letters.

48:3 In the East it is customary for women to dye their eye-lashes, and paint their eye-lids, with paint prepared out of a root called hennah.

49:4 It is an eastern custom to apply an ointment made of lime to the forehead, as a cosmetic to smoothen the skin.

49:5 The egg of a domestic fowl is considered as the lightest and quickest boiled of eggs.

49:6 Isa. xxx. 14.

49:7 Isa. xxx. 14.

Chapter VIII

CHAPTER VIII.

§ 1. How are techoomin 1 to be combined? A man places a cask [of wine], and says, "This is for all my townsmen, for all who go to the house of mourning, and for all who go to the house of feasting." Whosoever joins [in the combination] while it is yet day-light [on the eve of the day of rest], is permitted [so to do]; but after dusk it is prohibited, because the erub must not be deposited after dark.

§ 2. How much is the legal quantity [of food required to effect the combination of techoomin]? Food for two meals for every one [who joins therein], for working-day meals, but not for Sabbath meals. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but R. Jehudah saith, "for Sabbath-meals, but not for work-day meals." Both however intend to render the observance more easy. 2 R. Jochanan ben Berokah saith, "[It is sufficient to effect the combination if there be] a loaf

for a pundion, when the price of four saah flour is one selah." 3 R. Simeon saith, "two-thirds of a loaf [such as go] three to the kab of flour." 4 Half [of such a loaf is the standard time for remaining] in the house of a leper; 5 and the half of a half [of such a loaf of unclean food] to make the body unclean. 6

§ 3. If the inhabitants of a court and the inhabitants of a gallery [in the court] should have forgotten to join in erub, whatever is above ten hands high [from the ground] is considered as belonging to the gallery; and whatever is less than ten hands high [from the ground] is to be considered as belonging to the court. The mould [dug and heaped up] out of a ditch [or trench], or a stone, [if either be] ten hands high, [belongs] to the gallery; [but if] less than this [ten hands high, it belongs] to the court. When is this the case? [If the heap or stone be] close [to the gallery], but [if either be] separated [therefrom], even though it be ten hands high, [it belongs] to the court. What is [considered as] close? Whatever is at less distance than four hands.

§ 4. If a man deposit his erub [for combining courts] in a gateway [porter's lodge], or in a hall [entry], or in a gallery, it is no [legal] erub. Should any dwell there [who has not joined in the erub], he cannot render the court unlawful [to prevent the other inmates to carry or convey therein]. If a man deposit his erub in a straw store, or in a stable, or in a wood-shed, or in a granary, it is a [legal] erub; and he who dwells there renders the court unlawful [if he has not joined in the erub]. R. Jehudah saith, "If the householder has reserved to himself the right of keeping his utensils there [in such a loft, stable, shed, or granary], he [who dwells there] does not render the court unlawful."

§ 5. If a person quits his house, and goes to take his Sabbath-rest

in another town [without joining in the erub], whether he be a heathen or an Israelite, he renders the court unlawful [for the other inmates to carry or convey therein]. Such is the dictum of R. Meir. R. Jehudah saith, "he does not render it unlawful." R. José saith, "a heathen renders it unlawful, but an Israelite does not, as it is not the custom of an Israelite to return on the day of rest." R. Simeon saith, "Even though he has quitted his house, and is gone to take his Sabbath-rest with his daughter, in the same town, he does not render [the court] unlawful, since he has in thought renounced his habitation [for the time]."

§ 6. If a cistern be between two courts it is not lawful to draw water therefrom [on the Sabbath], unless there be a partition made ten hands high, either above [round the well] or below [within the water], or in the basin. R. Simeon hen Gamaliel saith, "Beth Shammai hold, [the partition must be made] below [within the water];" but Beth Hillel hold, "above [round the well]." R. Jehudah saith, "The partition is not more effectual than the wall which is between them [the two courts]."

§ 7. If a streamlet of water runs through a court, it is not lawful to draw water therefrom, unless there be a partition ten hands high, where it [the streamlet] flows in [to the court], and [another] where it flows out [again]. R. Jehudah saith, "The wall above it is to be considered a partition." R. Jehudah further said, "It so happened, that, in [the town of] Ebal, they drew water from a streamlet on the Sabbath, with the sanction of the elders;" but the sages replied, "[That was] because it did not hold the legal size [of a carmelith]." 7

§ 8. If there be a balcony above the water 8 it is not lawful to draw water [therein] on the Sabbath, unless a partition be made ten hands high, either above or below the balcony. So, likewise, if there be two balconies, one above the other. Should a partition have been made for the upper, but not for the lower one, it is unlawful to draw water from either, unless they have been combined by erub.

§ 9. If a court be less than four amoth square, it is not lawful to pour any water therein on the Sabbath, unless there be made a sewer capable of holding two saah below the outlet, either outside of, or within, the court. If [however] it [the sewer] be outside, it must be vaulted [over]; whereas, inside, it needs not be vaulted [over].

[§ 10. R. Eleazar ben Jacob saith, "A kennel which is vaulted over, to the extent of] four amoth, in the public reshuth, it is lawful to pour water into on the Sabbath;" but the sages hold that, even though the court or the roof be one hundred amoth long, it is not lawful [to pour water direct] down the kennel; but the water may be poured out on the roof, so as to drop into the kennel. The entry [hall] may be added to the [court in computing the four amoth] mentioned in the preceding Mishna." 9

§ 11. So, likewise, if there be two habitations facing each other [in one court], and the inmates of the one [habitation] have made a sewer, 10 but the inmates of the other have not [joined in making it], those who made the sewer are permitted [to throw water down it]; but those who made it not are prohibited [to throw water down it]. 11

Footnotes

88:1 Vide Introduction to the present Treatise.

88:2 Each of them considers his quantum as the less: R. Meir, because the food for working-days is coarse, of which no more is taken than just enough to satisfy nature; R. Jehudah, because, on the Sabbath three meals are taken, so that the quantity for each meal is smaller than on other days.

89:3 A saah is equal to six kab; the selah is four dinar; a dinar is six manah; the manah, two pundion; and the pundion, two eesar; so that at this price, a loaf for a pundion is equal to half a kab of flour; the kab is equal to twenty-four eggs; the loaf, therefore, to twelve eggs.

89:4 Equal to two-ninths of a kab, or five and one-third eggs.

89:5 Whosoever remains in the house of a leper time sufficient to eat half such a loaf [two and two-thirds of an egg], renders his clothes unclean, and must wash them.

89:6 Whosoever eats of the size of one-fourth such loaf [one and one-third egg], renders himself unclean, and cannot partake of any thing consecrated till he has bathed.

90:7 Vide Introduction to Treatise Sabbath.

90:8 With an aperture for drawing water.

91:9 Thereby to free the inmates from the necessity of making a sewer.

91:10 Vide § 9 of this chapter.

91:11 Unless they be joined by erub.

Chapter VIII

CHAPTER VIII.

§ 1. When a paschal sacrifice had been slaughtered for a woman living in her husband's house, by her husband, and another by her father [also reckoning on her], 1 she must eat of that of her husband. If she went to pass the first festival after her marriage at her father's house, and her father and husband have each slaughtered a paschal sacrifice for her, she may eat it at either place she prefers. When several guardians of an orphan have slaughtered paschal sacrifices for him, the orphan may go and eat it at the house he prefers. A slave belonging to two masters may not eat of the sacrifice of both masters.

[paragraph continues] One who is partly a slave and partly free, may not eat of the paschal sacrifice of his master.

§ 2. If a person order his slave to go and slaughter for him the paschal sacrifice, and the slave go and slaughter a kid or a lamb, he may eat it; if the slaughter a kid and a lamb, he may only eat that which has been slaughtered first. How is he to act when he has forgotten the [exact words] of the order of his master? He must kill a lamb and a kid, and say [at the time of the killing and sprinkling of the blood], if my master said [I should take] "a kid," then be the kid for him, and the lamb for me; but if he said "a lamb," then be the kid for me, and the lamb for him. If the master also had forgotten the precise terms of the order he gave, both animals must be burned, and neither master nor slave is bound to bring a second paschal sacrifice.

§ 3. If a person say to his sons, "I slaughter the paschal sacrifice for whichever of you shall arrive first in Jerusalem," then the first of them whose head and greatest part of his body has [first] entered [the city gate] has thereby acquired a right to his own share, and acquires the same for his brethren, who were also invited. As many people may partake of a paschal sacrifice as can obtain therefrom the quantity of meat of the size of an olive. Those that were numbered to eat it may withdraw [from the company] before the paschal sacrifice is slaughtered. R. Simeon says, "[They may do so], until the blood thereof is sprinkled."

§ 4. When a person has appointed others to partake with him of his share of the paschal sacrifice, his company are at liberty to give him his share to eat it separately with his own guests; and they may eat their own share [apart from him and his guests].

§ 5. A person subject to a running issue, who has twice in the same day experienced that issue, 2 and whose seventh day happened on the 14th of Nissan, may have the paschal sacrifice slaughtered for him thereon; but if he has experienced it thrice [in the same day], it may be slaughtered for him only in case his eighth day should happen [on the 14th of Nissan]. For a woman who has menstruated a day beyond her regular period, it may be slaughtered on her second day, 3 and when she has done so for two consecutive days, after her regular

period, it may be slaughtered for her on her third day; but for a woman subject to a flow of menses [three days beyond her regular period], it may be slaughtered on her eighth day only.

§ 6. For an ‏אונן‎ [a mourner who has lost on the 14th of Nissan a relative for whom he is obliged to mourn]; for a person employed in digging out of a heap of fallen ruins [persons therein overwhelmed 4]; for a prisoner who had a promise of being released; 5 and for aged and sick persons it is lawful to slaughter a paschal sacrifice, while they can eat thereof the minimum quantity of meat the size of an olive. But it may not be slaughtered for either on their own account alone, because they may cause the paschal offering to become desecrated and useless; 6 therefore, when either of these becomes disqualified to eat it, he needs not bring a second Passover sacrifice: except the person who has dug out [a dead body] from under the ruins, since such a one is unclean from the very outset.

§ 7. A paschal sacrifice may not be slaughtered for a single individual only, according to the opinion of R. Jehudah: but R. José allows it. It may not be slaughtered even for a party of a hundred individuals, if each of them cannot eat thereof the minimum quantity of the size of an olive. Neither may a company to eat it be formed of women, with slaves and minors.

§ 8. An ‏אונן‎ may eat of the paschal sacrifice at even, after he has bathed himself, but not of other holy [sacrifices]; but one who has only received the information of the decease of a near relative, or one who has the bones of a deceased person gathered for him, may eat of other holy sacrifices, after he has bathed himself. 7 A heathen proselyte, who was circumcised on the day before the Passover festival, may, according to Beth Shammai, "bathe himself, and eat in the evening of the paschal sacrifice." But Beth Hillel say, "One

who has just parted from the uncircumcised must be considered like one who has just parted from the grave." 8

Footnotes

116:1 To form one of the persons "appointed and numbered" to eat it.

117:2 Such a person is unclean for seven days, without being bound to bring a sacrifice; but if he had experienced it three times in the same day, he is not considered clean before he has sacrificed.

117:3 This can only be properly understood on reference to Treatise Niddah.

118:4 When it is unknown whether they are alive or not, in the latter case the person who digs them out contracts pollution.

118:5 In time to eat of the paschal sacrifice.

118:6 The mourner, through grief which may prevent his eating any thing. The person who digs to deliver the overwhelmed from the fallen ruins, in case any dead body is found. The prisoner, lest he be detained in the [heathen] prison; and the aged and sick, lest a sudden increase of illness or weakness might happen to them, so as to prevent their eating the paschal sacrifice.

118:7 Since the prohibitions in these cases are only of Rabbinical origin, they do not prevent the eating of the paschal sacrifice—a direct command of the Holy Law, the neglect of which is punished with excision [‏כרת‎].

119:8 And, therefore, this proselyte may not eat of the paschal lamb on that evening, because one who has just left a grave or dead body, becomes unclean for seven days, and requires the prescribed sprinklings on the third and seventh day of his purification, as mentioned in Leviticus.

Chapter VIII

CHAPTER VIII.

§ 1. On the day of atonement, it is forbidden to eat and to drink, to wash, to anoint, 2 to lace on [leather] shoes, and to indulge in sexual intercourse. A king and a bride [until the 30th day after her nuptials] may wash their faces; and a lying-in woman may lace [put] on [leather] shoes. Such is the dictum of Rabbi Eleazar: but the sages prohibit it.

§ 2. Whosoever eats food to the size of a large date, that is, the date with the kernel, or drinks a mouthful, is guilty. All kinds of

food are alike computed by the size of the date, 3 and all liquids by the mouthful; but food and beverage are not to be joined in the computation. 3

§ 3. If on one occasion [through oblivion], man has eaten and drank, he needs bring but one sin-offering; if he has eaten and [also] done work, he must bring two [separate] sin-offerings; if he has eaten food which is not edible [properly and usually adapted for human sustenance], or has drunk liquids which are not properly and usually adapted for beverage—as if, for instance, he leas drunk brine or fish-lie—he is absolved.

§ 4. Children need not be made to fast, but they are to be [gradually] habituated thereto, a year or two [before they are by law bound to fast], so that they become fluent [ready and accustomed] in obeying the commandments. 4

§ 5. If a pregnant woman, through the smell of food, longs for some on the Yom Kipur, she is to be fed until she recovers [is satisfied]. A sick person is to be fed by direction of expert [physicians]; but if there be no expert physicians, he is to be fed at his own desire, until the himself says [I have] enough.

§ 6. If a man is seized with bulimy, 5 he is to be fed 6 even with unclean food, until his eyes become clear [bright]. A person who is bitten by a mad dog, on the Yom Kipur, must not have any of the dogs [reticule of the liver] given him to eat; 7 but R. Mathias ben Harash permits it. Moreover, R. Mathias ben Harash said, "If a person has a sore throat, it is permitted to put drugs [medicines] into his mouth on the Sabbath, because the disease may endanger his life, and whatsoever threatens to endanger life supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath."

§ 7. If a building tumble down, and it is doubtful if any person be buried beneath the ruins or not; if it is doubtful whether he be dead or alive, or whether it be a heathen or an Israelite, it is permitted to remove the ruins from above him on the Sabbath; if he be found alive, the ruins are to be entirely removed [so as to extricate him]; but should he be dead, he is to be left [till afterwards].

§ 8. The sin-offering, and trespass-offering for sins done wittingly, atone [for sin]. The Yom Kipur and death, make atonement through [sincere] penitence; penitence makes atonement for slight transgressions against positive or negative commandments; in grave transgressions, it obtains a respite 8 until Yom Kipur completes the atonement.

§ 9. He who says, "I will sin, and then repent, I will sin [again], and then do penance," is not permitted [from on high] to become penitent; [for him who thinks] "I will sin; the Yom Kipur will atone for my transgression," Yom Kipur does not make any atonement. A transgression which a man has been guilty of towards his God, Yom Kipur will atone for; but a transgression a man has been guilty of towards his neighbour, Yom Kipur cannot atone for, until he has appeased his neighbour. For thus R. Eleazar ben Azariah expounds the text, "'From all your sins before the Lord shall ye be clean:' 9 those transgressions of which man has been guilty towards his God, Yom Kipur atones for; but for those transgressions of which man has been guilty towards his neighbour, Yom Kipur cannot atone, until he has appeased his neighbour." R. Akivah saith, "Happy are ye, O Israel, before whom do ye cleanse yourselves, and who cleanses you [of your transgressions]? Your father who is in heaven. For it is said, 'Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean;' 10 and it is also said, 'the ‏מקוה‎ 11 of Israel is the Lord;' even as a diving-bath purifies the unclean, so does the Holy One, blessed be He, cleanse Israel." 12

Footnotes

126:2 It was usual, in the days of the Mishna, to anoint the body and beard with scented oils and perfumes.

127:3 Vide Treatise Sabbath. The food and the beverage are not to be joined, so as to be computed together as the quantity, the eating of which renders a man guilty.

127:4 The legal age at which a boy is required to fast, and to perform all other religious duties, is from thirteen years upwards.

127:5 ‏בולמוס‎, βουλιμια a diseased ravenous appetite.

127:6 This rule holds good on the Yom Kipur, or at any other time.

127:7 It is considered not as a certain cure, but as a sympathetic remedy.

128:8 The doom is suspended.

128:9 Lev. xvi. 30.

128:10 Ezek. xxxvi. 25.

128:11 A bath of running water, into which a person who has contracted any uncleanness descends and dives, and becomes clean again.

128:12 Jer. xiv. 8.

Chapter VIII

CHAPTER VIII.

§. 1. [Of] a woman to whom property fell [by inheritance or gift] before she was betrothed, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree, "That after she is betrothed, whether she sell [the property], or give [it] away, it is valid." If it falls to her after she is betrothed, Beth Shammai hold "That she [has a right to] sell;" but Beth Hillel hold "She must not sell." Both however agree, "That if she has sold, or given [it] away, [her deed] is valid." R. Jehudah related, "They [litigants] pleaded before R. Gamaliel, 'As the man acquires the wife[’s person], can it be [right or reasonable] that he should not also acquire her property?' 1 but R. Gamaliel replied, 'We feel ashamed at the [rights conceded to the husband on her] new [property which falls to her after marriage], and ye wish to impose on us [the task of conceding similar rights on] her old [property, which fell to her after betrothment].'" Should the property fall to her after marriage. both [Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel] agree, "That whether she sell or give [it] away, the husband recovers it from the holders." [Should

the property have fallen to her] before she was married, R. Gamaliel saith, "Whether after her marriage she sell [the property], or give [it] away, [her deed] is valid." R. Hananiah ben Akivah related, "They pleaded before Rabbon Gamaliel, 'As the man acquires the wife ['s person], can it be [right or reasonable] that he should not also acquire her property?' 2 But Rabbon Gamaliel replied, 'We feel ashamed at the [rights conceded to the husband on her] new [property which falls to her after marriage], and ye wish to impose on us [the task of granting similar rights on] her old [property which fell to her before marriage].'"

§ 2. R. Simeon distinguishes 3 between property and property. Such property as is known to the husband 4 she must not sell, and whether she sold or gave [it away], it is void. Such property as is not known to the husband, 5 she must not sell; but if she has sold or given [it away], it is valid.

§ 3. Should ready money fall to her [as inheritance], land is to be purchased therewith, of which he [the husband] enjoys the usufruct; should fruit that has been reaped [gathered from the ground] fall to her, land is to be bought [with the proceeds] thereof, of which he [the husband] enjoys the usufruct. [As to] fruit growing on the ground, R. Meir saith, "They appraise the field, how much it is worth with the growing fruit, and how much without [it], and for the difference land is to be bought, of which he [the husband] enjoys the usufruct." But the sages decide, "That the fruit growing on the ground belong to him [the husband], but that fruit reaped [gathered from the ground] belong to her [the wife], that land must be bought therewith, of which he enjoys the usufruct."

§ 4. R. Simeon saith, "In cases where he [the husband] has the advantage when he marries her, he is at a disadvantage if he divorces her; and in cases where he is at a disadvantage when he marries her, he has the advantage if he divorces her. Fruit growing on the ground belong to him at the marriage, but at the [time of] divorce belong to her. Whereas fruit reaped [gathered from the ground]

belong to her at the marriage, but at the [time of] divorce they belong to him."

§ 5. Should aged bondmen or bondwomen fall to her [by inheritance], they are to be sold to purchase land [with the produce of the sale], of which he [the husband] enjoys the usufruct. But R. Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, "She can forbid the sale, because they [aged servitors] are an ornament to her father's house. Should old olive-trees and vines fall to her, they are to be sold to purchase land, of which he [the husband] enjoys the usufruct." R. Jehudah saith, "She can forbid the sale, because they [old trees] are an ornament to her father's house. Should a man incur an expense on his wife's property, whether he has expended much, and reaped but little [benefit], or has expended little and reaped much [benefit], what he has expended he has expended, and what he has reaped he has reaped. 6 Should he have incurred expense, and reaped no benefit whatever, he must make oath to the amount of his expenditure, and [then] recovers it out of the property."

§ 6 [In the case of] a woman who expects [to be married by] Yeboom, and to whom property falls, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel both agree, "That whether she sell, or give [it away, her deed] is valid." Should she die, how are they to dispose of her Ketubah, and of the property which comes and goes with her? 7 Beth Shammai hold, "The heirs of the husband share [divide equally] with the heirs of the father;" but Beth Hillel hold, "That the property reverts according to the original title. 8 Her Ketubah of right reverts to the heirs of the husband, and the property which comes and goes with her, of right reverts to the heirs of the father." 9

§ 7. If his [the Yabam's deceased] brother left ready money, land must be bought therewith, of which he enjoys the usufruct. [If the deceased left] fruit, reaped [gathered off the ground], land must be bought therewith, of which he [the Yabam] enjoys the usufruct. [Respecting] fruit growing on the ground, R. Meir saith, "They

appraise the field, how much it is worth with the growing fruit, and how much without [it], and for the difference land must be bought, of which he [the Yabam] enjoys the usufruct." But the sages decide, "That fruit growing on the ground belong to him, while that which has been reaped [gathered off the ground] belong to whoever [he or she] first obtains possession thereof. If he [the Yabam] first takes possession thereof, they belong to him; if she [the widow] first takes possession thereof, they belong to her; but [in that case] land must be bought therewith, of which he enjoys the usufruct. After he has espoused her, she is his wife to all intents, 10 saving always that she has a lien [for the amount of] her Ketubah on the property of her first husband."

§ 8. He cannot say to her, "There is [the amount of] thy Ketubah lying on the table;" 11 but the whole of his property remains liable for her Ketubah. [Another version has, "Moreover a man cannot say to his wife, 'There is [the amount of] thy Ketubah lying on the table,' but the whole of his property remains liable for her Ketubah"]. Should he divorce her, she has no [claim] beyond her Ketubah. If he takes her back, she is like all [married] women, and has no [claim] beyond her Ketubah only.

Footnotes

261:1 As by the act of betrothing, and also by the marriage-rite, the husband acquires an absolute and exclusive right to possess and enjoy the wife's person, it follows that by the same act he acquires an equal right to her property, which in fact is but an appendage to her person.

262:2 Vide Note 1, p. 260.

262:3 Establishes a different rule of proceeding in differing cases.

262:4 Real property to which, he knows before marriage, that she must succeed, and which knowledge may have influenced him in forming the alliance.

262:5 Property which, before marriage, he did not know she would inherit, and the expectation of which cannot have influenced him in forming the matrimonial alliance.

263:6 Both the expenditure and the benefit are for his own account and risk, and he has no claim upon the property for the surplus of expenditure over the benefit enjoyed, any more than he is liable to any reclamation for the surplus of the benefits enjoyed over his expenditure.

263:7 Her personal estate [whether landed or otherwise] which she brought her husband, and which reverts to her in case of divorce, or at his death.

263:8 and 9. ‏בחזקתן‎, its inherent force, the source whence it originally was derived. The Ketubah reverts to the husband who settled it on her; the personal estate to the father, from whom, or whose relatives, it devolved to her.

263:9 See previous note.

264:10 And all her rights merge in him.

264:11 By means of such tender to get rid of the liability.

Chapter VIII

CHAPTER VIII.

§ 1. When a husband throws a Get to his wife, when she is in her own house, or in the court she lives in, she is thereby divorced.

[paragraph continues] If he threw it within his house or court, even if it lies near her on her bed, she is not divorced [thereby]; but if he threw it within her lap or her work basket, she is divorced.

§ 2. If a husband said to his wife [about to be divorced], "Take this bond," or, that she finds a document fastened to his back, which she reads, and finds to be a Get addressed to her, such a Get is void, while he does not expressly say, "Here is thy Get of divorce." If he put it into her hands whilst she is asleep, and on waking she reads it, and finds it to be a Get addressed to her, it is void, until the husband says to her, "Here is thy Get." If the wife was standing in a public place or street, and the husband throws it towards her: if it fell nearest to her, she is divorced, but not if it fell nearest to him; when it lies in the middle [between them], it is doubtful whether or not she is divorced.

§ 3. It is even so with the marriage bond, and [the payment of] a debt. If a creditor said to his debtor, "Throw me the payment of the debt due to me by you," and the latter did throw it: if it fell nearest the creditor, the debtor is free, 1 but if it fell nearest to the debtor, this latter is liable; if it fell in the middle between them, both must share the risk. When a wife was standing on her roof, and her husband threw a Get to her: if it reached within the airspace 2 of the roof, she is divorced. If the husband stood on the roof, and the wife below, and he threw the Get down to her, it is valid as soon as it arrived below the level of the roof, although it should [in its further descent] have become obliterated, or burned.

§ 4. Beth Shammai decide, "That a woman maybe divorced by an old Get;" but Beth Hillel hold it to be prohibited. What is an old Get? Every Get [is so called] after the writing of which the husband was alone with his wife.

§ 5. When a person dates a Get by a foreign reign, 3 or according to the chronology of the Median or Greek monarchies, 4 or [so many years] since the building of the Temple, or since the destruction of the Temple, or when West is written when it should be East, or the contrary, then a woman [who, upon the strength of such a Get, had remarried] must be separated from both husbands. She must receive

a Get from both, and has no claim on either for the amount of her Ketubah, for her right of usufruct, for maintenance, and for the damage she might claim for the wear and tear of clothes belonging to her, 5 and is bound to refund whatever she may have received on that account from either husband; her child by either husband is a bastard; 6 neither of the husbands may [if they are priests] pollute themselves with her dead body, nor has either of them a right to what she may find or earn, or to annul her vows. If she is an Israelitess, she is disqualified to marry a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, she is prohibited to eat tithe; and if a priest's daughter, to eat heave; the heirs of neither husband have a right to her Ketubah, and when these husbands die, the brothers of both must have the ceremony of Chalitzah performed by her, but may not marry her by Yeboom. When his or her name, or the name of his or her city [or residence], have been written on the Get in a manner different [from the real names], she must [in case she remarried upon such a Get] be separated from both husbands, and she is subject to all the above-mentioned regulations.

§ 6. In the cases of women who are within the degree of consanguinity with whom it is forbidden to intermarry, and whose rivals it is permitted to marry; 7 should these rivals marry, and it is afterwards ascertained that the mentioned relations are unfit to bear children [‏אילונית‎], then the said rival must be separated from the husband she has married, and also from the brother-in-law, and is subject to all the mentioned regulations.

§ 7. When a person marries his sister-in-law by Yeboom, and her [former] rival married some other person, and she who married the brother-in-law was then ascertained to be an ‏אילונית‎, then the said rival must be separated from the husband she married, and from the Yabam [or brother-in-law], and is subject to all the mentioned regulations.

§ 8. When a notary writes a Get for a husband to divorce his wife, and an acquittance for the wife [acknowledging the receipt of the amount of her Ketubah], and gave by mistake the divorce to the wife, and the acquittance to the husband, who interchanged them

with each other; and when, after a time, the mistake is discovered, by the Get being found in the husband's possession, and the acquittance in that of the wife, she must [if she had already married another husband] be separated from both, and is subject to all the above-mentioned regulations. R. Eleazar saith, "If the error is discovered in time [i.e. before she remarried], the Get is void, but if not, it is valid; because the right of the first husband is insufficient to destroy the claim the second husband bas upon her." 8 When a person wrote a Get to divorce his wife, and afterwards changed his mind, he has, according to Beth Shammai, already disqualified her to be married to the priesthood [at any time]; but, according to Beth Hillel, she is not disqualified, even in the case when he actually delivered a Get to her conditionally, which conditions were not fulfilled [and rendered the Get void].

§ 9. When a person who had divorced his wife passes the night with her at an inn, Beth Shammai decide, "She does not require another Get of him," but Beth Hillel consider it necessary. This difference of opinion is only when he divorced her after having been married, and cohabited with her; but if he divorced her when she was only betrothed to him, both schools agree that no second Get is necessary, because he has not yet been intimate with her. If a person married a woman who had been divorced with [a so called] bald Get 9 [‏גט קרח‎], she must be separated from both husbands, and is subject to all the above-mentioned regulations [§ 5].

§ 10. A bald Get may, according to ben Nanas, be made perfect by any one; but R. Akivah saith, "It may only be perfected by persons whose evidence, when tendered in other cases in her behalf, is admissible, although they should be related to her." What is a bald Get? One which has more folds than subscribing witnesses. 10

Footnotes

299:1 Of the obligation of repayment if the money so thrown was lost.

299:2 That is, within three hand-breadths of the surface or level of the roof.

299:3 That is, by a dynasty which does not reign in the place the Get was written.

299:4 Or by any other monarchy which does no longer exist.

300:5 This is explained in Treatise Yebamoth, chap. X., § 1, et seq., and also in Treatise Ketuboth.

300:6 This is according to R. Meir, hut the Halacha, or doctrinal decision, is to the contrary effect.

300:7 See Treatise Yebamoth, chap. I.

301:8 R. Eleazar apprehends that some collusion may exist between the woman and the first husband, who [to the prejudice of the second husband] may have clandestinely exchanged their documents, so as to be allowed to cohabit again.

301:9 See the next § and note.

301:10 This answer is too concise to explain the subject of the question to any one unacquainted with the passage in another part of the Mishna, to which allusion is here made. It is mentioned, in Treatise Baba Kama, that the priests were often in the habit to divorce their wives in sudden fits of passion, and repented soon after; when, as priests, it was unlawful for them to take them back, after having been once divorced. The sages, therefore, instituted this kind of Get, for the purpose and with the intention of delaying the divorce, and to facilitate a reconciliation between the parties taking place. For much time was spent in the preparation of the said Get, as, after the writing of one or two lines, it was p. 302 ordered to be folded and sewn, so that there were many folds, to each of which the signature of at least one witness was to be affixed, at the back; when any fold appeared to which no signature of a witness was attached, it was called a bare or bald Get [‏גט קרח‎], and was void in consequence; because, it is supposed, that the folds were originally made to correspond with the number of subscribing witnesses, and that the husband told every one of them to sign it, with which, apparently, one or more of them did not comply, who, therefore [as mentioned in the Mishna above], have caused the Get to become void.

Chapter VIII

CHAPTER VIII.

§ 1. It is prohibited to boil any kind of flesh 1 in milk, except that of locusts 2 and fish; neither may meat and cheese be brought to

table together, except locusts and fish. A person who vowed not to eat meat, may eat locusts and fish. Fowl and cheese may, according to Beth Shammai, be brought to table together, but may not be eaten together; but, according to Beth Hillel, they may neither be brought to table nor be eaten together. R. José saith, "This is one of the cases in which Beth Shammai decide in a less rigid manner than Beth Hillel." 3 What kind of table is here alluded to? The table on which the person is eating; but on the table on which food is prepared [a dresser], both kinds may without apprehension be placed near to each other.

§ 2. Meat and cheese may be wrapped up together in one cloth, if they do not touch each other [i.e. are placed in contact]. Rabbon Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, "Two guests [at an inn or ordinary] may without apprehension eat at the same table, one of them meat, and the other cheese."

§ 3. When a drop of milk fell upon a piece of meat [in a pan], all the meat therein is prohibited if it could have communicated its flavor to the meat; 4 but if the contents of the pot had been immediately stirred together [after the milk fell into it]: if it imparted its flavor to the whole, the contents of the pot are prohibited. The udder [of a cow or goat, &c.] must be torn, and the milk be pressed out of it; but if it had not been torn, the person who eats it has not transgressed; the heart must also be torn and the blood pressed out. If it had not been torn, the person who eats it thus has not transgressed; 5 and he who has fowl and cheese brought to table together has not transgressed the negative commandment.

§ 4. It is prohibited to boil [in milk] or to derive any benefit from the flesh of a clean animal which was boiled in milk of a clean animal, but it is permitted to boil and to reap advantage of flesh of a clean animal boiled in the milk of an unclean one, or, of the flesh of an unclean animal boiled in the milk of a clean one. R. Akivah saith,

[paragraph continues] "Wild animals and fowl are not specified in the law [as subject to this prohibition]; for it is said, 'Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk,' but this precept was mentioned three times, 6 to include wild animals, fowl, and unclean animals. R. José the Galilean saith, "It is said [Deut. xiv. 21], 'Thou shalt not eat of any thing that dieth of itself' [Nebelah], and it is added immediately, 'Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk.' Consequently, those animals only which are prohibited as Nebelah may not be boiled in milk, and as it might be supposed that since a fowl may become prohibited as Nebelah, it would therefore be prohibited to boil it in milk, the Scripture uses the expression, 'in its mother's milk,' to except fowl, to which that expression cannot apply." 7

§ 5. It is prohibited to use the curdled milk in the maw of an animal slaughtered by a non-Israelite, which is Nebelah. When a person put milk in the interior membrane of the maw 8 of a Cashér killed animal; 9 if the milk can impart a flavor to it, it is prohibited. The milk in the maw of a Cashér animal, which sucked from one that is Terefá, is prohibited; but the milk of a Terefá, which sucked from a Cashér animal, may be used, because the milk remains gathered [enclosed] in the intestines. 10

§ 6. Several laws are more rigid in respect to the prohibition of eating suet [‏חלב‎] than they are in that against eating blood, and some, again, which relate to this latter prohibition, are more severe than those in respect to the first mentioned. More severe in respect to suet, inasmuch as a trespass [‏מעילה‎] may be thereby incurred, as also the guilt of having brought an abominable [i.e. unfit] sacrifice [‏פגול‎], and having eaten of what remained 11 [‏נותר‎], and became unclean, which is not the case in respect to the blood. Some laws are more severe as regards blood, since this prohibition applies to the blood of domestic and wild animals, and also to fowl, whether they are of a clean or unclean species, but that against eating suet applies to clean animals exclusively.

Footnotes

344:1 This term includes the flesh of cattle and venison, and also of fowl; the prohibition of the two first is derived from the Law, that of the last-mentioned is of Rabbinical origin.

344:2 Some species of locusts are even at this day used as a common article of food p. 345 in some countries of the east. The species here particularly alluded to is of the cucullated or hooded species, and is called "Locusta minor flavicans Chagab edulis," i.e. the lesser yellowish locust, or edible Chagab.—(Scheuchzer, Physica Sacra.)

345:3 The contrary is generally the case, Beth Hillel being mostly less rigid in their decisions than Beth Shammai.

345:4 This is the case when the piece of meat does not exceed sixty times the size or proportion of the drop of milk.

345:5 In the Talmud, Treatise ‏כריתות‎, this is explained as limited to a fowl's heart only.

346:6 Exodus xxiii. 19; ibid. xxxiv. 26; and Deut. xiv. 21.

346:7 Hebrew, "which have no mothers milk." The Halacha or Rabbinical decision is, however, according to R. Akivah.

346:8 Which is flesh.

346:9 To convert it into runnet to make cheese.

346:10 And does not mix with the juices, &c., of the animal that is Terefá.

346:11 That is, if eaten or kept on the third day since the animal was sacrificed. (See Leviticus xix. 5, 6, &c.)

JSON: /api/sources/mishnah/11-chapter-viii.json